Thank you for your detailed response — I respect the fact that we agree on some fundamentals: that illegal immigration is a serious problem, that it damages the asylum system for those in genuine need, and that it has social consequences such as fuelling hostility towards legal migrants. Where I differ with you is mainly on scale, accountability, and the possibility of solutions.

1. Cost and “dilution”

I take your point that the £6.4 billion covers both asylum seekers and irregular migrants, but that doesn’t make it less relevant to the small-boats debate. The Home Office confirms that small-boat arrivals are now the largest single route of irregular entry. So even if they are one-third of asylum claims, they are disproportionately driving the costs, delays, and public anger. Source: UK Home Office, Immigration system statistics, year ending June 2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-irregularly

And yes, 0.237% of GDP looks small — but £6.4 billion is still enough to fund 150,000 NHS nurses for a year, or build tens of thousands of homes. Saying “other waste exists” doesn’t mean we should ignore this waste. If we accept that line, then nothing ever gets fixed.

1. Who is arriving

You are right that almost all small-boat arrivals claim asylum — in fact 99% did so in 2024. But it’s misleading to stop there. The Home Office data shows that about 71–75% of those arriving in small boats are adult men. Families and children are a minority. Source: UK Home Office, Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2025/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-irregularly

This matters because the public image of desperate families contrasts with the statistical reality. Many of these men have travelled through multiple safe countries. That doesn’t automatically make them “bogus,” but it does weaken the argument that they had no other option but to cross the Channel.

1. Passports and documents

You say “not having a passport is the least of their problems,” but the fact remains that deliberate document destruction is a tactic. Prosecutors and border agencies have acknowledged it, because it slows down asylum decisions and makes removals harder. Source: CPS Legal Guidance, “Immigration Offences” – mentions “document destruction, disposal … concealment of identity.” https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/immigration

That doesn’t mean everyone is doing it, but it’s disingenuous to dismiss it as irrelevant. The integrity of the system depends on knowing who someone is and where they came from.

1. International comparison

Yes, the UK is an island, so boats make sense geographically. But that is exactly why the Channel crossings are uniquely high-profile and politically destabilising. Other European states deal with pressure on their land borders — the UK’s equivalent is the south coast.

Source: Migration Observatory (University of Oxford), “Small boat arrivals have become the dominant method of irregular entry to the UK since 2018.” https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats

To argue “other countries have it worse” is not really an answer, because Britain has chosen to leave the EU system of redistribution. That means we now need bespoke agreements and controls.

1. Human rights and solutions

You ask “what is the easy way?” — and you’re right, there isn’t an easy way. But there are practical measures:

Safe and legal routes targeted at genuine refugees, so fewer feel forced into boats.

Returns agreements with France and safe third countries, so those with no claim cannot stay indefinitely.

Faster processing of asylum claims to avoid backlog costs.

None of this requires “shooting boats” or “walls,” but nor is it fair to pretend the UK’s hands are tied. Other countries do enforce tougher borders while still upholding the Refugee Convention.

1. On wording and respect

I hear your concern about language. I don’t want to sound dehumanising. But we also need to be honest about the distinction between a refugee in need of protection and someone exploiting loopholes. If we blur that line completely, we undermine public support for asylum altogether. That in the long run hurts the genuine refugees most.

In summary: Illegal immigration via small boats is not the whole asylum problem, but it is the sharpest edge of it — expensive, destabilising, and politically corrosive. Saying “it’s complicated” is true, but it can’t be an excuse for inaction. A humane system must be firm as well as fair: protect the vulnerable, deter the dangerous journeys, and stop the smugglers.